ARTICLE
doi:10.1038/nature10137
Role of YAP/TAZ in mechanotransduction Sirio Dupont1*, Leonardo Morsut1*, Mariaceleste Aragona1, Elena Enzo1, Stefano Giulitti2, Michelangelo Cordenonsi1, Francesca Zanconato1, Jimmy Le Digabel3, Mattia Forcato4, Silvio Bicciato4, Nicola Elvassore2 & Stefano Piccolo1
Cells perceive their microenvironment not only through soluble signals but also through physical and mechanical cues, such as extracellular matrix (ECM) stiffness or confined adhesiveness. By mechanotransduction systems, cells translate these stimuli into biochemical signals controlling multiple aspects of cell behaviour, including growth, differentiation and cancer malignant progression, but how rigidity mechanosensing is ultimately linked to activity of nuclear transcription factors remains poorly understood. Here we report the identification of the Yorkie-homologues YAP (Yes-associated protein) and TAZ (transcriptional coactivator with PDZ-binding motif, also known as WWTR1) as nuclear relays of mechanical signals exerted by ECM rigidity and cell shape. This regulation requires Rho GTPase activity and tension of the actomyosin cytoskeleton, but is independent of the Hippo/LATS cascade. Crucially, YAP/ TAZ are functionally required for differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells induced by ECM stiffness and for survival of endothelial cells regulated by cell geometry; conversely, expression of activated YAP overrules physical constraints in dictating cell behaviour. These findings identify YAP/TAZ as sensors and mediators of mechanical cues instructed by the cellular microenvironment.
Physical properties of the extracellular matrix (ECM) and mechanical forces are integral to morphogenetic processes in embryonic development, defining tissue architecture and driving specific cell differentiation programs1. In adulthood, tissue homeostasis remains dependent on physical cues, such that perturbations of ECM stiffness—or mutations affecting its perception—are causal to pathological conditions of multiple organs, contributes to ageing and cancer malignant progression2. Mechanotransduction enables cells to sense and adapt to external forces and physical constraints3,4; these mechanoresponses involve the rapid remodelling of the cytoskeleton, but also require the activation of specific genetic programs. In particular, variations of ECM stiffness or changes in cell shape caused by confining the cell’s adhesive area have a profound impact on cell behaviour across several cell types, such as mesenchymal stem cells5,6, muscle stem cells7 and endothelial cells8. The nuclear factors mediating the biological response to these physical inputs remain incompletely understood.
ECM stiffness regulates YAP/TAZ activity To gain insight into these issues, we asked if physical/mechanical stimuli conveyed by ECM stiffness actually signal through known signalling pathways. For this, we performed a bioinformatic analysis on genes differentially expressed in mammary epithelial cells (MEC) grown on ECM of high versus low stiffness9. Specifically, we searched for statistical associations between genes regulated by stiffness and gene signatures denoting the activation of specific signalling pathways (Supplementary Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 1 and Methods). We included signatures of MAL/SRF and NF-kB as these factors translocate in the nucleus in response to changes in F-actin polymerization and cell stretching10. Strikingly, only signatures revealing activation of YAP/TAZ transcriptional regulators emerged as significantly overrepresented in the set of genes regulated by high stiffness (Supplementary Fig. 2). To test if YAP and TAZ activity is regulated by ECM stiffness, we monitored YAP/TAZ transcriptional activity in human MEC grown on fibronectin-coated acrylamide hydrogels of varying stiffness (elastic modulus ranging from 0.7 to 40 kPa, matching the physiological
elasticities of natural tissues6). For this, we assayed by real-time PCR two of the best YAP/TAZ regulated genes from our signature, CTGF and ANKRD1. The activity of YAP/TAZ in cells grown on stiff hydrogels (15–40 kPa) was comparable to that of cells grown on plastics, whereas growing cells on soft matrices (in the range of 0.7–1 kPa) inhibited YAP/TAZ activity to levels comparable to short interfering RNA (siRNA)-mediated YAP/TAZ depletion (Fig. 1a and data not shown). We confirmed this finding in other cellular systems, such as MDA-MB-231 and HeLa cells, where we used a synthetic YAP/TAZresponsive luciferase reporter (43GTIIC-lux) as direct read-out of their activity (Fig. 1a and Supplementary Fig. 4). Next, we assayed endogenous YAP/TAZ subcellular localization; indeed, their cytoplasmic relocalization has been extensively used as primary read-out of their inhibition by the Hippo pathway or by cell– cell contact (Supplementary Fig. 5 and ref. 11). By immunofluorescence on MEC and human mesenchymal stem cells (MSC, an established non-epithelial cellular model for mechanoresponses5,6), YAP/TAZ were clearly nuclear on hard substrates but became predominantly cytoplasmic on softer substrates (Fig. 1b and Supplementary Figs 6 and 7). Collectively, these data indicate that YAP/TAZ activity and subcellular localization are regulated by ECM stiffness.
YAP/TAZ are regulated by cell geometry It is recognized that changes in ECM stiffness impose different degrees of cell spreading6,12. We thus asked whether cell spreading is sufficient to regulate YAP/TAZ. To this end, we used micropatterned fibronectin ‘islands’ of defined size, on which cells can spread to different degrees depending on the available adhesive area8. On these micropatterns, the localization of YAP/TAZ changed from predominantly nuclear in spread MSCs, to predominantly cytoplasmic in cells on smaller islands (Fig. 1c). Of note, the use of single-cell adhesive islands rules out the possibility that cell–cell contacts could be involved in YAP/TAZ relocalization. We confirmed these results using human lung microvascular endothelial cells (HMVEC, Fig. 1d), that are well known to regulate their growth according to cell shape8.
1
Department of Histology, Microbiology and Medical Biotechnologies, University of Padua School of Medicine, viale Colombo 3, 35131 Padua, Italy. 2Department of Chemical Engineering (DIPIC), University of Padua, via Marzolo 9, 35131 Padua, Italy. 3Laboratoire Matie`re et Syste`mes Complexes (MSC), Universite´ Paris Diderot and CNRS UMR 7057, 10 rue A. Dumont et L. Duquet, 75205 Paris, France. 4Center for Genome Research, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, via G. Campi 287, 41100 Modena, Italy. *These authors contributed equally to this work. 9 J U N E 2 0 1 1 | VO L 4 7 4 | N AT U R E | 1 7 9
©2011 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved